# If you had proof of God would you show the world?



## Dark Tyranitar (Apr 14, 2009)

Basically what the title says; an alternate view to the "If you had proof of no god..." thread.


----------



## Yarnchu (Apr 14, 2009)

No. Why would I encourage the crazy ones? (No, I don't think every Christian/Jew/Muslim is crazy, just the ones that take it to the extreme.)


----------



## goldenquagsire (Apr 14, 2009)

I'd do the same as I would with proof of the non-existence of god - hand it to scientists and let them deal with it.

After all, just because I was wrong, doesn't mean I would be a jerk about it and deny the truth to everyone else. The whole basis of science is finding out the truth via evidence, after all.


----------



## GalladeMaster (Apr 14, 2009)

Yes, yes I will.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Apr 14, 2009)

GalladeMaster said:


> Yes, yes I will.


I like the 'will' instead of the 'would'. Good luck there buddy.

If I ever found definitive evidence of God, sure I would. I'd probably pass it on to someone else so as not to get attacked (by some extremist atheist retard or something) but I think people would deserve to know the truth.
Same thing with 'If you had proof of no God' really. Just replace 'extremist atheist retard' with 'extremist religious retard.'


----------



## Storm Earth and Fire (Apr 14, 2009)

I'd pitch this one to the wastebin and laugh for 5 minutes too.

Only the wastebin part is metaphorical.


----------



## Harlequin (Apr 14, 2009)

Yes, of course I would. I'm all about the pursuit of truth and knowledge.


----------



## Tailsy (Apr 14, 2009)

I still think it would be kinda rude...


----------



## opaltiger (Apr 14, 2009)

Proving God, by definition, makes him/her/it not God, so like the other thread, this would be impossible.

But, speaking purely hypothetically, yes. Truth matters.


----------



## Elfin (Apr 15, 2009)

While I would love to know for sure for myself, I'm not sure how many people I'd tell. Who would believe me?


----------



## Jetx (Apr 15, 2009)

Evoli said:


> While I would love to know for sure for myself, I'm not sure how many people I'd tell. Who would believe me?


If you have written proof, it wouldn't really be possible for people not to "believe" you, would it?

I would show the world.


----------



## Minish (Apr 15, 2009)

opaltiger said:


> Proving God, by definition, makes him/her/it not God, so like the other thread, this would be impossible.


The definition of 'God' is just a deity, so how does this work? I've never met a Christian who thinks the existence of God couldn't be proven, so their definition doesn't count either...

Is this proof of the monotheistic god only? Because I probably wouldn't then either. Maybe to scientists, but it would be leaked eventually, and people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe.

Hmm... it's tricky. I believe knowing the truth is important, but...


----------



## Bombsii (Apr 15, 2009)

I wouldn't. Just because i'm that sort of person and need to think i'm right.


----------



## opaltiger (Apr 15, 2009)

> The definition of 'God' is just a deity, so how does this work? I've never met a Christian who thinks the existence of God couldn't be proven, so their definition doesn't count either...


Well, this is rather an agnostic point of view, but I think it holds merit.

As Butterfree said in the other thread, the God hypothesis is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. On the flip side, this means it is impossible to prove the existence of God - which is where faith comes in.

If it were possible to prove the existence of a being _like_ God - ie. created life somehow, perhaps even the universe, capable of resurrection, that sort of thing - then the being would not be God, because the supernatural element, that is the element which is responsible for the above mentioned unfalsifiability, would be lacking.


----------



## Harlequin (Apr 15, 2009)

Cirrus said:


> The definition of 'God' is just a deity, so how does this work? I've never met a Christian who thinks the existence of God couldn't be proven, so their definition doesn't count either...
> 
> Is this proof of the monotheistic god only? Because I probably wouldn't then either. Maybe to scientists, but it would be leaked eventually, and *people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe.*
> 
> Hmm... it's tricky. I believe knowing the truth is important, but...


Cirrus, people believe things that have been proven otherwise _anyway_. The Earth isn't flat - tell that to the Flat Earth Society; lots of Christians don't believe in evolution, some native Americans believe that they didn't cross and landbridge and were ~created~ in America and so on.

People will still have the *right* to believe what they want to believe - nobody's disputing that - and the only difference will be that more people than currently will know they're wrong.

We wouldn't be infringing on anyone's rights.


----------



## Minish (Apr 15, 2009)

opaltiger said:


> Well, this is rather an agnostic point of view, but I think it holds merit.
> 
> As Butterfree said in the other thread, the God hypothesis is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. On the flip side, this means it is impossible to prove the existence of God - which is where faith comes in.
> 
> If it were possible to prove the existence of a being _like_ God - ie. created life somehow, perhaps even the universe, capable of resurrection, that sort of thing - then the being would not be God, because the supernatural element, that is the element which is responsible for the above mentioned unfalsifiability, would be lacking.


I still don't understand. Couldn't - if God exists - the god-like being just come down from the sky one day and show himself to the world?

I must sound so unintelligent, but I honestly don't get it.



Harlequin said:


> Cirrus, people believe things that have been proven otherwise _anyway_. The Earth isn't flat - tell that to the Flat Earth Society; lots of Christians don't believe in evolution, some native Americans believe that they didn't cross and landbridge and were ~created~ in America and so on.
> 
> People will still have the *right* to believe what they want to believe - nobody's disputing that - and the only difference will be that more people than currently will know they're wrong.
> 
> We wouldn't be infringing on anyone's rights.


But if you went up and gave a child proof Father Christmas didn't exist, I still think that would be unfair to the child if it made the kid happy.

I get what you're saying though. If there was hypothetically _absolute_ proof of a god, you could no longer believe there was no god any more than you could believe there was a god, so the belief would be obsolete... because it would be the truth. I think.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Apr 15, 2009)

Cirrus said:


> But if you went up and gave a child proof Father Christmas didn't exist, I still think that would be unfair to the child if it made the kid happy.


The difference being that most Christians aren't small children.


----------



## Minish (Apr 15, 2009)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> The difference being that most Christians aren't small children.


I've met many Christians whose belief in God is very similar to small children's belief in Father Christmas.


----------



## Harlequin (Apr 15, 2009)

When a child is gullible that's fine - it elicits "aww cute"-esque replies. When an _adult_ is gullible ... that's another matter. For someone who is supposedly emotionally mature, clinging to the imaginary friends of childhood is ... dangerous.

The only reason religious people are seen as normal is because the delusion is wide-spread.


----------



## #1 bro (Apr 16, 2009)

yes, of course.

really, I don't know how there could be multiple answers to these questions. :\


----------



## Tarvos (Apr 19, 2009)

Can't we bugger this stuff off to the DH and religion thread and get a discussion going again


----------



## Eye of Gorgon (Apr 19, 2009)

If I did, then I'd be so shocked. I'd spread the word, because I'd have bee denying it  for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Vyraura (Apr 20, 2009)

Jetx said:


> If you have *written *proof, it wouldn't really be possible for people not to "believe" you, would it?
> 
> I would show the world.


lol bible


----------



## ultraviolet (Apr 25, 2009)

Jetx said:
			
		

> If you have written proof, it wouldn't really be possible for people not to "believe" you, would it?
> 
> I would show the world.


...does this mean that Harry Potter is real? Just because it's written doesn't mean it's unquestionable truth.


----------



## Jetx (Apr 25, 2009)

Well there isn't "proof" of anything in the Bible or in Harry Potter books, is there? If you found some sort of "formula" that made God have to be real, something as indisputable as 1+1=2, then you couldn't not believe it.

Obviously it would never happen, but that's not what the thread is about.


----------

